eBooks

An estimated 20 million Americans have thyroid disorders, but more than half don’t know it. Find out why thyroid problems are so often mis-diagnosed, what really causes them, and how to heal them naturally.

Research suggests that healing your gut may be the single most important thing you can do to improve your health. In this eBook, you’ll learn how to optimize your gut health—and by extension, your overall health—with simple diet and lifestyle changes.

What is a low carb diet, really? When can a low carb diet be beneficial? Should everyone follow a low carb diet? Or, can a low carb diet ruin your health? After reading this eBook, you’ll be able to understand the many factors that play into how a person handles a low carbohydrate diet, and whether or not their health will improve on such a plan.

Are common additives to food and supplements like soy lecithin, carrageenan, xanthum gum, and magnesium stearate harmful–or harmless? Read this eBook to find out which ingredients you should be concerned about, and which are safe.

Is sugar “toxic” in any amount—even in natural sweeteners? Are artificial sweeteners safe? What about stevia and xylitol? Cut through the confusion and hype and find out which sweeteners are safe for you and your family.

The Paleo diet has the potential to dramatically improve your health—but the transition doesn’t always go smoothly. In this eBook, you’ll learn the three biggest obstacles to Paleo success, and how to overcome them.

What do memory loss, depression, anxiety, fatigue, nerve pain, and infertility have in common? They can all be caused by B12 deficiency. Find out why B12 deficiency is more common than most doctors think, how to know if you’re deficient, and what to do about it.

Does eating cholesterol and saturated fat really cause heart disease? Are statin drugs as effective as we’re told? Find out what the latest research says in this eBook, and learn how to prevent and treat heart disease naturally.

Rest in peace, China Study

I know this was all over the blogosphere yesterday but I think it’s important enough for a repost.

One thing I can count on every time I write an article extolling the health benefits of animal products is someone sending me an email or posting a comment like this:

I think you’re absolutely wrong. You should read: The China Study, by Dr. T. Collin Campbell.

Sorry to be contrary, but T. Colin Campbell’s “The China Study” should put this issue to rest. Please consider the information presented there. The methodology is impressive.

Campbell recommends a vegan diet–no animal based food at all. He claims that population studies demonstrate that vegan populations do not suffer from the high incidence of cardiovascular disease and cancer that we in the West do with our diets heavy on animal protein.

In fact, those are direct quotes from comments that have been left on my blog over the past year. I can’t even show you some of the emails people have sent because the language might offend you.

Usually I direct those folks to Chris Masterjohn’s excellent critique of the China Study. Now, however, I’ll be sending them over to read Denise Minger’s freshly published China Study smackdown.

Here’s the introduction:

When I first started analyzing the original China Study data, I had no intention of writing up an actual critique of Campbell’s much-lauded book. I’m a data junkie. Numbers, along with strawberries and Audrey Hepburn films, make me a very happy girl. I mainly wanted to see for myself how closely Campbell’s claims aligned with the data he drew from—if only to satisfy my own curiosity.

But after spending a solid month and a half reading, graphing, sticky-noting, and passing out at 3 AM from studious exhaustion upon my copy of the raw China Study data, I’ve decided it’s time to voice all my criticisms. And there are many.

Denise got hold of the raw study data and took it apart with a fine-toothed comb. And what she found is that the claims Campbell made in his China Study book are not supported by the data. She also found important data points Campbell never bothered to mention in the book because they didn’t support his vegan agenda.

For example, Campbell conveniently fails to mention the county of Tuoli in China. The folks in Tuoli ate 45% of their diet as fat, 134 grams of animal protein each day (twice as much as the average American), and rarely ate vegetables or other plant foods. Yet, according to the China Study data, they were extremely healthy with low rates of cancer and heart disease; healthier, in fact, than many of the counties that were nearly vegan.

This is just one of many cases of the selective citation and data cherry picking Campbell employs in the China Study. Denise’s critique masterfully reveals the danger of drawing conclusions from epidemiological studies, which can only show correlations between variables – not causal relationships. Campbell should be well aware of this. After all, in his book he rails against the nutritional bias rampant in the scientific community. Yet nowhere is such bias more evident than in Campbell’s own interpretation of the China Study data.

Denise concludes:

Ultimately, I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data (and elsewhere) to confirm his predictions.

Campbell’s response to previous critics of the China Study has been something to the effect of: “I’m a trained scientist. Therefore you should believe me and not my critics.” That is a weak argument – to put it mildly. You don’t need six years of graduate school to learn to think critically. Nor does having a lot of letters after your name make you immune to biased thinking or intellectual blindness. A lot of smart, educated people believed the cholesterol hypothesis for decades. But that never made it true.

You can read more – and I mean a lot more – over at Denise’s blog. I recommend starting with her article China Study: Fact or Fallacy? For many of you, it will be more than enough. But if you’re interested in this stuff, she has written several other articles worth reading.

P.S. You might also want to check out this debate between T. Colin Campbell and Loren Cordain on human protein requirements. Notice that Cordain’s articles contain 164 citations of research studies. How many references do Campbell’s articles contain? Zero. And Campbell’s typical “I’m more educated than the other guy” won’t fly here. Dr. Cordain has some serious chops.

Like what you’ve read? Sign up for FREE updates delivered to your inbox.

Categories

I am not going to say you should read the China Study…I am going to say that if you are not paid by the meat and poultry industry you missed your calling.

There is so much wrong with the meat sold in the US that it is just beyond reason that any honest person would try to support consuming it…Your grass fed beef is a fake for the most part and your Paleo diet doing more harm than good…

Whole plants is the way to go, dump the dairy, processed foods and meat which includes fish…

Graph Smaph. Who cares about statistics. Really. I mean, come on. Here’s an interesting back up to Derk’s story. This isn’t my opinion. It’s a FACT. I can say that because I have proof. Self Proof that is. I have a thyroid disorder. In short, I’m a fat pig. Yup, I wrote that. I AM A FAT PIG! Have I used my thyroid disorder as a means to eat whatever the heck I want. Of course I have! At age 28, I was a svelte 135 pounds. I was beautiful; I had long tanned legs, bright beautiful eyes, and I modeled from age 20 to 28. Then, about a week after turning 28 I began gaining a significant amount of weight. This was terrible for me! I was horrified because after all, I was eating a “well balanced diet” and I was getting ample exercise. I swam, danced, and I was heavily into gymnastics. I was a rock star! How could this happen to me???! Well, it did. Now, well; now I’m 50. Yup, call me Fifty and Fatty. I’ve been this way since the age of 28. I found out I had Hashimoto’s Thyroiditis at the age of 28 and I was told at that time there was absolutely no cure and that I would continue to gain weight and I should just “get use to it and get use to being on medication for the rest of my life.” It was a sobering entrance to the next 2 decades of my life. Well. I figured, what the hell. Why not just consume whatever I want. After all, why not; I’m just going to be fat anyway; might as well get use to being the fat girl on the bus that nobody wants to sit next to. So, I ate and I ate. I ate a lot of meat. I loved meat. I was a heavy meat eater. I loved bacon and eggs in the morning and I loved fried pork in the afternoon! I loved steak and I adored ham. Then, one day I had chest pain. I was 35 at the time. I had an EKG done right away. I was fine, no sign that I had had a heart attack but blood tests were taken and they came back with some very sobering news. My Cholesterol was well over 350! My BP was around 145/95. I was instructed to lose weight. Yeah, sure okay doc; whatever you say. I went back to eating the very same way. I figured I was going to die an early death from heart disease anyway according to all the people I spoke to who had relatives with thyroid disease and who ended up dead or on death’s door with heart issues. Basically, I spent the last 2 decades of my life feeling pretty sorry for myself. I thought and believed I did NOT have a say in my health. Do I still have thyroid disease. Sure, it isn’t going away anytime soon, that’s for sure. About 4 years ago, I lived in rural PA. I loved it there. It was beautiful. Kind of reminds me of the dairy farm the doc from the China Study spoke about. It was quiet too. I decided that while I may never be a size 2 again; I was going to begin an exercise regimen and after reading the very rewarding book by Dr. Furhman, who wrote, “Eat to Live”, I decided…why the hell not take a chance! So, for three whole months I ate nothing but vegetables and fruit, nuts and seeds, etc. I ate no grains to speak of, including my much beloved theater popcorn (that was a pretty hard sell but I did it!). Three months later, I stood on the scale at the docs and I was down 30 pounds and my blood work showed an excellent cholesterol panel! My BP was 118/75! It was suburb! I was completely stoked by this! Then, Then. A tragedy struck my family; my mother passed away from cancer. Her cancer was from heavy drinking and smoking; so they claimed. I believed that too. I was devastated. My best friend in the whole world was struck down way to soon. She was only 55. I couldn’t stay on the wagon too long after that. Soon, I was drowning my grief in donuts and fat laden meats and pizza. I gained the 30 pounds back PLUS another 20 on top of that! So, that being stated and with all due respect to you flesh eaters…I have to side with the plant eating, animal saving, tree hugging hippies. Eating a diet rich in fruits and veggies, nuts and seeds is HIGHLY beneficial in lowering blood pressure, lowering cholesterol and lowering your weight. Ok, so why on earth am I at fat little piggy still? Hmmm…it is more than likely all that lunch meat I consumed last week! So, what am I going to do about it? I am going to get off my fat @@#$ and get back to my herbivore lifestyle! If you one percenters out there eat all of this crap and STILL maintain a lovely cholesterol level and have no BP issues, GREAT FOR YOU; but please, have some respect for those of us who have not reached your evolutionary status; not all of us are blessed with such rich favor as you. Until then, eat your veggies and you too can grow hair on your chest!

Ragdoll, here’s a thought. Maybe, just maybe…you know since some of you LOVE to tack that word, “hereitary” on to just about everything and anything…perhaps the group of people you are referring to that ate a high protein diet but had no diseases or cardiovascular issues, are a lucky bunch of people whose “heredity” plays a part! In other words, if it works for Derk…great! Why say it’s biased…it’s not. His “OPINION” is based on factual evidence. He lost a lot of weight, his dad lost a lot of weight, they both were able to get rid of the dangerous drugs that docs like to push. I think you are all just pissed off because you know it’s the truth and like those who choose to be an atheist so they don’t have to face the eternal consequences (or they at least believe that), you’d much rather eat and drink yourselves into a boiling, festering, artery clogging cesspool. Well, by all means! Go eat your meat…go fill your arteries with cholesterol…that way once you’ve perished from all those nasty diseases…the rest of us can commence to getting on with our lives and rescuing all of those poor animals you love to consume.

This is cherry picking stats at its worst. How an unqualified so-called stat junkie can get her hands on raw data and decipher it (have never heard of that ever!) is pure fiction. And the fact you are using it as a defence here shows you have little else in your arsenal.

The fact that people believe that a low carb, high protein, high fat diet is healthy is just ridiculous. No research that has been undertaken on the long term health effects of the paleo diet.Whereas there is plenty of highly credible in depth research that has been conducted on the long term health effects of a whole food plant based diet (reversing heart disease, diabetes, obesity etc etc). All the research shows that high protein, high fat diets will lead to heart disease and overall bad health. The paleo diet is another fad and people are cashing in. Wake up people!!!

Oh stop your arrogant vegan promo… A lot of people, including Chris if I’m not mistaken, have gone the vegan/vegetarian route at one time or another believing it was the best way to eat for health and guess what? It simply wasn’t the case.

I personally followed Dr.Dean Ornish’s recommendations in the early 90s for almost a year and never felt worse, or looked as bad in my entire life (I know… I must have been doing it wrong LOL)

Yes, your arteries are different than any other human and sugar, saturated fat plus animal protein make you not only feel good but healthy. Good luck with that and I still think Ornish has it right! When the Paleo diet fans can prove that one person has reversed heart disease on that diet I will eat my hat.

It would be nice to have more research but the fact is that there are long-living populations that can better provide evidence of the benefits of a whole plant-based diet than studies on rats… And no long-lived population that we know about was vegan but at least 80% of the calories are whole plant-based.

Chris’s, do you seriously want us to dismiss Campbell’s research based on the comments of a 23 year old with no scientific experience, nor any related credentials what so ever??? Read Campbell’s response. However, everyone should how they want. Americans do. And see for yourself how healthy this nation looks…

This blog holds no weight. The China Study is not the work of one person. It’s a collective effort which consists of many PHD’s in the field of nutrition just to name a few.

I think critics want to bite because the information The China Study offers, will pull you away from the processed food we eat, and the money the government & big corporations stand to make with the misleading marketing that brain washes America.

Dr. Campbell is asking of nothing in return. He’s just keeping people informed, and he isn’t the only one.

Processed Foods, Meat & Dairy are bad for the body. Just because we’ve done things a certain way for hundreds of years, even thousands, doesn’t mean it’s right.

Reading this blog makes me recall on a comment a US soldier made. He said, people don’t know what it takes to defend our freedom. If you live in the states, & you think you’re free, you’ve been duped.

Just because we live in better conditions than the majority of the world, doesn’t mean what’s occurring in the states right now is right.

Money & government, in theory, is supposed to work. Why isn’t it? Greed. We have enough land to harvest plant based foods for 10 billion people, from what I read, and there are only about 7 billion people on this planet.

Farms cause a great deal of pollution. Not to mention how they’re slaughtered daily.

When ever knowledge is provided that can truly reshape the way we behave, and the government/corporations are threatened, they attack you with lies.

Sure, and by the way, do you know agroecology and the impossibility to grow organic food without animals? So basically industrial farming is bad traditional rotation farming (manures and fields) is good.

It’s not at all impossible to grow organic food without animals. Veganic farming has shown to be very successful, and there are ways of composting organic material that are at least as effective as manure.

Regardless, you don’t need to cage and kill an animal to use its manure. In fact, it makes a lot less manure when it’s dead. So either way, there’s no argument for eating meat.

Forget your own health for just a minute. I know the paleo diet might be working for you toady and you’re feeling really fit. But 30 years from now your heart might not work is it could if you dropped those animal products. And hey consider this, maybe it’s not all about you anyway. Forget the animals for a second too. What are we doing to the planet with our food choices? Everyone knows our blue water is dwindling to an alarming rate. We are on the verge of water wars on this planet. A pound of beef using 2500-5000 gallons of water vs. a pound of greens using 31 gallons. Ok, you want to talk about protein, right? Here’s another example:a pound of hemp takes just 50-100 gallons to produce, and believe it or not, is a complete protein source that is easily digested by the body, plus it contains omegas in the perfect ratio AND chlorophyll, AND has-wait for it….MORE PROTEIN per pound than beef. And this is true whether it’s hemp seeds or just the refined protein. I see no justification on a planet with an exploding population for us to continue consuming animals. And, I do happen to believe that a plant based diet is better for our bodies and then obviously, it’s better for the animals too. The thinking that we are the top of the food chain is based in pure ego. I live by the principle of “ahimsa” which means do no harm. Raising animals for food and slaughtering them is causing harm: to them, the planet, and us. I like the idea of live and let live, but that becomes increasingly hard when people eating animals is threatening our very extinction as a species. Bottom line is, it’s time to move from ME to WE consciousness, and make the connection between our food choices and their effects on the planet as a whole.

Denise, I know most meat eaters don’t want to believe this science or hear the truth. I’m not surprised you don’t want this conversation happening on this thread. I understand that as a society we’ve been conditioned to eat meat and believe that we need it for our survival. I understand that you don’t want this discussion to happen, but it is happening. And it will keep happening until people wake up to the destruction they are causing by making that choice. I trust that humans will evolve out of eating animals, it’s just a matter of time. But I am committed to doing everything in my power to speed that time up to spare us the existing and impending suffering caused by that choice. Not just the suffering of the animals, but also the suffering of our fellow brothers and sisters, and of course, mother earth who is the one who ultimately sustains us all.

If I wanted to look at the science, I would look at the peer-reviewed literature, and try to figure out which studies were well done and which conclusions well-supported. Of course, I don’t actually have to do that; we already know that the results are all over the map and there is no consensus among scientists about any optimal diet for everyone. And the reason for that is most likely that humans are omnivores who can and do thrive on a wide variety of diets.

If I wanted to find confirmation of what I already believed, I would find:

a) blogs and websites of people pushing their pet dietary theories which happened to coincide with my own.

Blah, blah…forget the science that does not exist look around at the long-living populations and see what they do… Read the Blue Zones for a start if you any desire to find the truth instead of waiting for 100 years or more for science to figure it out.

It might seem to be off topic, but it is a natural progression. Some people have an animal rights agenda that gets them to investigate the diet issue. I had a diet and health issue first. After reading the China Study, along with the work of Neil Barnard, John McDougall and others, I realized that this is the most healthy way to eat. The last four years of my live have convinced me of that. My life has been turned around in ways that I did not think was possible 10 years ago. I’m 50 and running marathons. 10 years ago, I was putting on weight with several health issues and I assumed that it was normal aging. I was so wrong.

Anyway, after realizing that not only are animal foods not required for proper human health, but in fact they are detrimental to good health in many ways, the slaughter of animals and the environmental damage of animal agriculture is JUST WRONG….Period.

I agree with the health issues and environmental impact of the present manner of consuming animal products but bringing in the welfare of the animals is beyond my understanding. There are good ways to raise and slaughter animals but that does not make the product healthy…

Are you the same liberal that supports abortion but believes animal rights are higher than the desire of people to eat? If there is no correct way to slaughter animals does that also mean we should not harvest living plants?

A smart reader does not judge the work on the authority of the writer, but rather the science contained in the work. I read the book and I think the science is bad. Many others agree, and many others disagree, but for me the conclusion is not based on the relative prestige of the PhD.

If you going to go with credentials, why Dr. Campbell? He’s one person. His views do not represent the consensus of his peers at all.

If you’re going to go with the weight of authority, then look for the weight of authority. Don’t go cherry-picking one guy who’s at odds with his whole field and then try to claim you trust him because he has the creds.

Really I do not read this article, I do not waste my time with it, but I want to comment: The China Study is the best statistical study never done. It is true not only scientifically but morally too. Unlike this article, The China Study does not obey any commercial interest. This kind of article’s title like a commercial achieved only to attract interest of people for read the China Study. I am glad for that. Soon we are going to see a vegan world free from the clutches of meat producers and theirs consequence: the overuse of antibiotics and pesticides.

The piece everyone keeps leaving out of this conversation is the environmental impact of our diets. We can argue til the cows come home which diet is bet for you to eat today(though the science shows that long term high animal protein diets cause early death for a variety of reasons) , but what diet is actually sustainable for people and the planet? The population is exploding. This planet can not sustain more people eating more meat. It takes 2500-5000 gallons to produce a single pound of beef that contains about 96 grams of protein, and 50-100 gallons of water to grow a pound of hemp protein which contains 220 grams of protein. Do the math. Eat green for our long term survival.

Adam where have you been? Water a renewable resource? Quality water is in decline. Or perhaps wikipedia got it wrong… I am sure they would welcome your intellectual reasoning, you can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict and as to whether it is 2,500 or 5,000 gallons… does it really matter? 2,500 is toooo much… Seriously… if you want to debate…. make it interesting PLEASE!

Adam you can google it. The number varies because it depends on the farm and many other factors, grass fed cows consume many more resources, including water(which I’m sorry you’re not aware of the issue, but maybe do some more research on this -Blue Gold is an informative doc about it). And thanks for bringing it up that yes there certainly are many other costs and resources associated with raising animals for food. Most of them are hidden costs. Namely:land use(including rainforest destruction 91% of it slashed to make space to graze animals or the crops that feed them), air quality (methane from cows is anywhere from 18-51% of GHGe-more than all transportation combined), water quality(dead zone in the ocean form pollution runoff from factory farms), world hunger (70% of the world grains is feeding animals, not people which are dying at the rate of one every other second btw),then there’s medical costs to treat the obesity and heart failure from animal protein and fat laden diets….the true cost keeps mounting….

I agree with a lot of what you say on here Magda. A couple things I want to mention. The style of agriculture is the problem. Some areas should not be inhabited because of extreme lack of water but we humans are to prideful to consider those things. Those water numbers are whacko. There are methods of agriculture that take a few more years to get started and once they are do not require water at all or very very little supplemental. I myself am trying to create a closed loop system of home food production on a quarter acre of land + nut trees, fruits trees etc perennial edibles that can be sustained with no corporate purchased inputs at all. I eat processed free and used to eat vegan/vegetarian but have now settled on a little bit of meat (wild game/pasture raised chickens BEYOND industry standards). About a half a pound to a pound a week and the rest vegetarian protein sources. There is one thing I’d like you to consider Magda and maybe you have a solution for me. I live near Canada in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. It has a very short growing season. I want to grow all of my own food so I don’t have to buy any store bought corporate trash food. I’m about 50 to 60% of the way there. I dry veggies/herbs in the summer, I store winter root veggies,cabbage,onions,garlic that I grow all the way into the next spring in my root cellar. In this climate it takes about 4000 square ft to grow a complete vegetarian diet for one person for a year if EVERYTHING goes right in the season and seasons vary drastically out here. I’ve painstakingly tried to figure how to do this manually no till without mechanization and it’s very difficult. In a climate like this tough animals like deer are a very concentrated source of essential nutrients being that they convert a lot of the aggressive hardy grasses and weeds out here in a bioavailable form for us to digest. Heritage chickens left to roam free and eat bugs and clean up the gardens before overwintering is crucial to keeping everything going smoothly without killing yourself with work when it gets close to winter snowfall. They like doing it. They are designed for this zone. No abuse no confinement and they convert all the wild stuff that is difficult, if not impossible to digest, into bioavailable protein/essential nutrients that are needed to survivee the harsh winters out here comfortably. I only slaughter chickens if I absolutely need to and get about 2 million calories worth of eggs a year from 30 chickens.

Anyway I respect your opinion Magda and I would like to understand how you view my particular situation or others who do not want to rely on the corrupt Oligarchy and their poisonous products of all kinds. I’d appreciate some feedback

Adam, Also look at the US farm subsidies. They primarily go to meat and dairy producers and I believe that in 2013 it was around 26 Billion (yes with a B) . If the farm subsidy did not exist, meat prices would basically triple in the US.

Most low crarbers I know are both fat and conservative. Their conservatism really gets challenged when you point out the federal subsidies support their meat habit. I thing it is the source of great angst.

I do agree that we all probably can benefit from consuming more natural food but I do believe that exercise plays a bigger role as well. If you look at some one like Jack Lalanne who ate chicken or fish everyday of his life along with a mix of high quality vegetables and lived to be 96, how do you explain that? He was probably pound per pound stronger than anyone that was studied in the China study and set world records. I just believe he is a wealth of untapped knowledge that many people ignore. He has a lifetime of data to be explored. Just a thought.

I agree Jack Lalanne’s age and achievements are impressive. I’d like to add that without seeing LaLanne on a vegan diet it’s hard to say if his diet of chicken and fish is superior. On a different diet he may have lived longer, done more, etc – we just don’t know. Simply put, just because person A ate foods X, Y and Z and had a good life doesn’t mean everyone’s better off eating X, Y and Z.

Lalanne and Dr. Campbell agree on more than you might think. Lalanne shifted his views later in life. “In his later years, he appeared to advocate a mostly meatless diet…” He also advocated against processed foods. “If man made it, don’t eat it.” (http://goo.gl/4kj6v6) This is consistent with the China Study. Dr. Campbell doesn’t just suggest avoiding animal products, but processed foods as well. This is why he calls his diet ‘whole food plant-based.’

There are plenty of successful vegan athletes too. For instance Jim Morris is still body building at age 79 and has won numerous competitions such as Mr. USA, Mr. America, Mr. International and Mr. Olympia. (http://goo.gl/I09Gb8)

We can trade anecdotal evidence back and forth indefinitely, but for me the macro evidence is more important. (Such as the China Study) The way I see it, eating animal products raises more questions than it offers answers. (http://goo.gl/P5wkJB)

As for exercise, my experience has been that diet will get you to an appropriate weight and exercise will improve your body composition. Without a well thought out diet, it’s unlikely for most people to achieve their fitness goals.

It’s not just Minger’s age and lack of qualifications. If you read Dr. Campbell’s response to Minger it’s clear: —> She didn’t understand the book’s objectives. —> She did not account for biological plausibility. —> She inappropriately used ‘raw’ univariate correlations instead of multivariate regression analysis. —> She failed to note the broader implications of choosing the right dietary lifestyle.

You did two things: exercise and change your diet, and yet you’re claiming that you only saw benefits with the diet. I think you are missing a pretty key component here… which is accounting for the other possible variations. IE – eating some meat but also exercising, and seeing if it makes a difference.

End of the day, right or wrong, meat, no meat… Each and every single person on this plant is born both equal but so different at the same time. Your DNA may react well to meat, others not so much. Grouch our lifetime things change. Metabolism goes up and down. We exercise more. We exercise less. So many factors,

If someone wants to eat a plant based diet and it works…booyah! If someone wants to eat a light meat base diet and it works…booyah! If someone wants to eat McDonald’s every day of their life and it works…booyah!

This is called free will. Please don’t argue that we should do this or should do that and get all angry. Do you know what people that impose their will on others are? Fascists. Not a good direction to take. Educate if you think you must and sit back and be smug if you think you are better.

The point is that most people’s diets aren’t working. 68% of the USA is overweight or obese. Some of the most developed countries in the world also suffer from the highest rates of diseases, despite a high level of medical care being available.

That’s why most people have read this article. If not for themselves for someone they know that is in poor health. That’s why the China Study is so interesting – it challenges our previous assumptions about what the optimum fuel for our bodies is.

Personally I haven’t found any data to support that animal products are a necessary component of optimum health, but I’ve found plenty that suggest animal products are linked to obesity and disease.

Quite wrong Adam. There is a lot more to human weight than the calories in, calories out equation. Plus, the rich western diet has addictive qualities that are not found in unprocessed plant foods. This makes limiting the total amount consumed even more difficult.

The China Study indeed is a good study from the 80’s , the China Study Book however is just 10% of the Study with only the positive results about the Vegetarian Lifestyle supporting the believes of Dr. T. Colin Campbell and his personal war against Animal Protein.

If you want to refer to a study then you have to follow the conclusions of that study regardless your personal believes,

This for example is a table out of the China Study about the correlation between animal proteins and Cancer .

Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers in the China Study (Junshi C 1990) * significant correlation.

according this table fibers and Carbodhydrates have a greater correlation to Cancer then Animal Protein which is rather neutral . the people eating more fat seemed to have a reverse correlation to Cancer .

this is just on of the many conclusions from the China Study Dr Campell leaves out of the Book because they don’t support his vegetarian believes .

up to today no claims made against Animal Proteins are being supported by independent orignial Science . neither are the reversal benifits eating more Vegetables and fruits .

there are much more recent bigger studies done nowedays then one from 30-40 years back with better technologie and follow ups.

example :

a more recent studie who is in fact still running is the Women’s Health Initiative 1990 – 2015 . In its entirety, the WHI enrolled more than 160,000 postmenopausal women aged 50–79 years (at time of study enrollment) over 15 years, making it one of the largest U.S. prevention studies of its kind, with a budget of $625 million

CONCLUSIONS: Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce CVD risk.

show me the recent independent evidence against animal Proteins *( not made by Vegetarian scientists like Campell) and for example Cancer there isn’t one .. show me recent evidence eating more Vegetables and fruits reverse cancer and other diseases often claimed by Vegetarians there isn’t one .

beeing independent regardless your believes and respecting the outcomes should be the work of a Scientist rather ten manipulating studies which clearly is the case In the China Study Book .

if you are interested in the Real China Study since every Vegetarian refers to the Book as the reason why vegetables and fruits are so healthy .make sure you now what you are talking about and don’t just deny every remark who is been made againts the book without reading the China Study .

come with data and referals which support your claims out of the China Study .( not Book ) or rather come with independent data and referals from this decade !

By eating animals you are forcing your opinions on them by forcing them to live against their will, making you a fascist and a hypocrite. Is a police officer a fascist for preventing a criminal from murdering someon? I mean how dare they deny them their free will to kill people?

I mean really? I think its silly, I mean utter silliness, that you are using Denise as a source. She is a woman in her early twenties who is nothing more than a blogger with zero, I repeat ZERO educational background in nutrition. Her age would indicate a lack of life experiences in that arena as well. If you want to bash something like the China study to death using someone such as Denise simply bashes your own credibility. There are a lot of issues with her blog. Lets start with the fact that she regularly deletes any comment posted that points out anywhere that she may be wrong, or any critique, or anything at all that would indicate that she is not 100% accurate. If she was confident in her stance she would not need to erase these comments. Secondly in her ex vegan story posted on her blog she states that after a year of becoming a raw vegan following the 80/10/10 diet that she was deficient in B12 because she followed instructions and did not take a supplement. It is a ridiculous lie that the 80/10/10 diet states to not take a supplement, if anyone bought the book it says to supplement B12 in nice bold letters. Also it is questionable to say the least the she became deficient after only a year considering your liver holds between 2 and 7 years of B12 reserves, unless of course she was had a deficient going into the diet, which of course was never tested. All in all im just trying to say that anyone should be very careful taking nutritional advice form someone in their early twenties without any background in nutrition.

What I always find so curious in these debates over dietary choices where medical this and scientifically that, is they all seem to ignore the big, pink elephant in the room called our anatomical design. How about deriving direction from common sense observation of our digestive equipment? The shape of the teeth, our digestive enzymes, length of our intestines, our fingernails over claws… or the fact that most of us see a puppy and want to cuddle and caress it over a instinctual kill and consumption of it guts and organs. It’s just not the complex mystery that the medical and scientific communities like to project. Our design tells us the answers as to what optimally fuels the body and supports our internal healing mechanisms. Everything else is about arguing for power, greed, to be “the authority or right”, and most to the point – justifying what we prioritize or desire. There is an argument for every piece of food and addiction out there. You can have all the degrees in the world, there is no arguing the design of the human body. Nutrients, vitamins, minerals, phytochemicals, antioxidants, hydration, alkalinity, air, sunlight, detoxification/elimination, optimal digestion, assimilation, absorption… what works with the body’s design to provide all of this? Plant kingdom on & off land, end of story!

Thank you soo much Anna, I book marked that. People accuse Dr Campbell of bias influencing his work but I find his book unbiased. Yes I bought his book. Yes I was a meat eater and now I am not. No I am not vegan but I would like to reduce dairy even more. I feel facts are facts and people who dispute will never accept the hard facts. A cannabis addict will not listen to the psychological impact of his/her habit, they will argue till the cows come home.

Vegans are like anti gun,anti anything people that become crazy if your not agreeing with them. They lack critical thinking and live by emotion. If you don’t eat meat fine,just leave me to eat mine in piece………s

No one (well no one logical that is) has an issue with you eating meat. As some one mentioned before, that’s your choice that you have every right to make. I think to generalize all Vegans as anti gun or anti everything is a little presumptuous. The issue is that you should have all the information present before making choices about what exactly your putting into your body. The experiments that Dr. Campbell conducted over the last 40 years or so indicate that adopting a plant based diet helps reduce and even cure some degenerative illnesses. These findings are at least enough to get you to think about cutting down meat consumption and moving toward a more plant based diet.

I also however don’t agree with Jeremy. Bob is not saying that meat is necessary, just that if he feels for a burger don’t be all up in his face about how he’s going to die, or how he’s a murderer, or destroying the planet; just let the man eat in peace.

One meal won’t kill you, and one meal won’t save you. It’s about making lifestyle choices that will lead to a more vibrant life.

“The experiments that Dr. Campbell conducted over the last 40 years or so indicate that adopting a plant based diet helps reduce and even cure some degenerative illnesses. These findings are at least enough to get you to think about cutting down meat consumption and moving toward a more plant based diet.”

Explain to me how looking at aggregate data not accounting for extraneous factors at all indicates that a plant-based diet is more healthy? And do not misunderstand me by comparing a vegan diet to a diet of nothing but burgers and soda. Let’s use common sense. Let’s practice moderation and stop being such an extremist and alarmist culture.

If we isolated a population and wrote a book called “The Meattown Study” and it found that in this city of 10,000 people they had less heart disease and less cancer than those found in the China Study, would it be accurate to say then that meat protects against cancer? Of course not… there are too many variables at play to make such a superlative claim.

This is, at heart CORRELATIONAL data. In other words, we’re noticing that on average people in an isolated part of world have certain outcomes associated with their diets. OK… great… what does that prove?

What if I told you that people, on average, are more likely to get into car accidents in the summer time. Does that mean that the sun causes car crashes? Do we then advise not driving in the sun? No… it’s stupid… just like this “study”.

It appears that you have not read The China Study. Campbell discusses the interpretation of statistics in depth and does not make conclusions based on simple correlation. You should read the book before you criticize it.

It’s time we moved from ME to WE consciousness. Your actions do actually affect the whole world, not just your little one. We need people to be making the connection between their food choices and sustainability. We all share this beautiful planet after all:) Maybe watch this for some facts that might just change your perspective. http://vimeo.com/85007420

As someone already pointed out, Minger is a 26 year old with an undergraduate degree in English.

I’ve read the China Study. I can’t say that I agree with it. I think that if someone is in really bad shape, then they ought to follow the advice 100% The rest of us can safely play the odds and eat a hamburger once in a while.

That being said the fact that Dr. Campbell even shares his raw data speaks to his “bias”. The man was raised on a dairy farm and pushed milk his whole life……until the results proved himself wrong.

Your article makes it sound as if Dr. Campbell grew up in the back of a VW bug with vegan parents, and that he now pushes his own vegan agenda.

The fact that no one is posting contrary opinions to this article is probably because you’re backing the play of a 20-something English major.

Sharing data is what scientists do. They also share their methods of statistical analysis, which Dr. Campbell did not do – which is one reason you’ll have to look pretty hard to find any of his peers discussing the China Study.

If they don’t share these things so that others can reproduce their results then they have no credibility.

OK, lets calm down. This is just a headline. I see no link to the study in question, which is always a red flag for me. I like to see what the methodology that the researchers use. What were the controls? How did they measure the levels? Unfortunately this isn’t enough evidence to to address the point being discussed. Dr. Campbell has given MANY studies that show his results where as you have offered ONE (without sources). Even in the book, Dr. Campbell stats that no one study can sway the way you should think.

i was advised by a personal trained (who later told me he was jacked up on steroids) to try ‘palio’ and buy a bunch of expensive supplements from him (aka atkins, low carb) i stayed on it for about 2 years and in the end was feeling so crap and depressed like i was in a comma from lack of carbs. As soon as i started eating rice and potatoes again and cut out all animal products i felt better and more motivated to enjoy life. A friend of mine who is still on it just went to the hospital to have kidney treatment caused by all the excess protein and animal fat, another friend has to have heart surgery and until recently he beveled that Eskimos were healthiest people on the planet despite me showing him studies that their average lifespan was 29 years.

Countless proper medical studies and years of real scientific evidence (not some english major student with a wordpress blog and a modem like Minger etc) say that low carb high protein diets are dangerous and cancer causing, Atkins died from it and was obese. China Study used research compiled by over half a million Chinese over decades. You dont event need that i’ve been to asia the high carb rice and veg eaters are slim and healthy and those that eat wester diet are obese and unhealthy they now even have obese children there for the first time because of all the meat and dairy the new generation is consuming in McDonalds and kfc over there. Go to Asia and see it for yourself Mr Kresser before you spread any more of this poisonous nonsense on people who are desperate to regain their health. Is this the kind of contribution you want to make in this world ? Increase human and animal suffering, why ? do you can sell some more toxic supplements ?

all your low carb ‘gurus’ are nothing more than infomercial ‘gurus’ trying to get rick quick from sale of supplements with no real regard for peoples health just look at their websites, if these ‘palio’ diets are so healthy why do you need all these supplements, are supplements something that comes from the palio times perhaps ?

palio. low carb – It a scam and fraud , buyer beware. do your own research and consult your doctor and dangers of high protein eating and benefits of whole natural foods.

I am currently taking T Colin Campbell’s plant-based nutrition course so that I have a better understanding of his research. It’s fascinating.

Before that, I was paleo for about a day, until I saw the cookbooks. A 55% meat-based diet is not common sense. SOme of these cookbooks suggest eating meat two and three times a day. Can you say colon cancer?

At any rate, what I noticed in the plant-based diet class is that T Colin Campbell is simply the opposite side of the same coin. Extremist. He’s arguing that “all” animal protein is bad and causes cancer and degeneratives diseases. I don’t think that’s the answer either (hello EPA and DHA and vitamin B12!). And while I give any vegan or vegetarian credit for refusing to eat meat on an ethical and environmental level, I still believe there needs to be a balance. And I don’t see that happening with either of these worldviews. Each of you have a very narrowminded agenda based on data and not common sense.

While humans have been eating meat for millions of years, they have not

1. eaten unlimted amounts of it per day (as we have access to) 2. eaten fat, well taken care of pastured animals, but rather wild, leaner animals 3. eaten pre-packaged, processed corn-fed, conventional animals stripped of almost all their nutrients

So, as much as theoretically, we’d all like to think 55% meat is a good thing, it’s not. At least not in today’s day and age.

However, we should not deny ourselves completely of “all” meat. The EPA and DHA found in fatty fish like salmon and sardines has hundreds and thousands of studies backing its positive effects. In fact, singling out DHA alone–you cannot deny its brain power–something TCC flat out denies.

At any rate, common sense and balance are the key. And I don’t see either of those things in either of these world views.

I disagree that Campbell is wrong in his response. He is absolutely right, Denise is not his peer, she is nowhere near the level of researcher as Campbell is, so how can she critique his work? It would be like someone who is an amateur boxer who started boxing 2 or 3 years ago critiquing Floyd Mayweather on his form, or his skills or anything he does in the ring.

Where do his peers criticize his work? Show me, please. I’ve been looking.

I can’t find any of his peers referencing the China Study one way or the other. I can scarcely find anyone discussing it who is not a nutrition blogger with a dietary belief system to push.

To me, this absence of interest is a clue that his work has no scientific credibility. If he came even close to proving his claims, there should be more people talking about it than just the vegan and paleo folks. Where are they?

I read the China study and without even looking at the data said, “Hmmm, he didn’t take processed foods into account at all and he didn’t address the huge problems with grains”. Why does he not address these important issues? Because they don’t make his case as well.

By the way, who cares what Minger’s credentials are. Edison was an elementary school dropout. Yet you don’t deny the lightbulb because of it. Facts are facts. If her facts are wrong, then debate it, but saying that she’s 26 and an English major is ridiculous. People don’t need school to get an education. In fact, schooling can prevent education. Her education is irrelevant.

Hi I almost died i think from that stupid 30 bananas a day diet. Ill tell you what happened. I was vegan for about a year just a normal vegan not the extreme fruitarian.

Anyway so i started seeing those idiot 30 bananas a day people on youtube making it like this diet would make you live forever or something.

So I tried the fruit diet I was feeling really good when in week two i had a 10 banana smoothie mixed with a lot of spinach i downed that then went for a like 40 minute jog. I was on top of the world and feeling good so i actually jogged to the Starbucks to just relax cause i was feeling so good.

Anyway at the Starbucks I started feeling funny and felt really spacey and I started seeing spots I thought i was going to die. It probably was from too much sugar anyway i was scared I was thinking should i wait it out or go to the hospital.

So I saw a carls jr across the street so i went and ordered a low carb burger and ate it and the spaciness and spots i was seeing stopped almost immediately.

But i was still so sick so i walked home really slow it was only across the street but I knew I needed to be in bed cause i was sick so I made it home and threw up bananas and spinach it felt like for a few hours as soon as i threw up i started feeling so much better. When my body threw up the poison all that sugar i slept and knew i would live and woke up feeling good.

The next day i was pissed at what those morons did to me so I left a comment on durianriders youtube video letting him know his diet almost killed me and he looked like hell.

Anyway this is a true story i really don’t know how anybody can last even a few weeks on 5000 calories a day on fruit sugar without something happening to them like it did to me.

Gosh, why do all those vegan people just randomly hang around a paleo website? So that they could throw some random quote or video and demand to explain it? I just don’t get it. I don’t go to their websites and don’t demand them to momentarily convert to eating meat, why the heck do they come here?

I’m not vegan but I can answer your question. They came here because this article shows up in a search of “The China Study.” Some vegans and vegetarians search for info on it and then find this article.

So since you are citing Denise Minger, please share with us her credentials. Who is she? The only thing I can tell is that she’s a blogger with an English degree from Northern Arizona State. Is she a nutritionist? What makes her “research” valid?

exactly the China Study Book only refers to the 10% positive outcomes positive effects of the vegatarian Lifestyle not the other 90% of the China Study .

you don’t have to be a scientist to read conclusions and data just have some commen sence and lots of time or interest to read original science which is the best way to find the truth about Nutrition since its being so much manipulated by different sides or believes .

She didn’t do research. She did statistical analysis. What does her credentials have to do with the correctness or incorrectness of her facts? Even Campbell’s colleagues came to the same conclusions as Minger using the same data.

Yes Chris, you really should personally respond to each and every blog, video, study and comment on the Internet that takes a position opposing your own. Even 3 years on from the posting of this article. /sarcasm

I personally read the entire China Study book and did a bunch of personal research on diet. Trust me, if I felt that eating ice cream, bacon and cheese was good for me I would be all over it. I am 60 years old and have been vegetarian for over 15 years and vegan for about 1 year. My cardiovascular is better. I weigh about the same as I did in high school and am in the shape of my life. I never get sick anymore and I mountain bike about 6,000 miles per year. My friends who are on high meat crap diets although much younger are overweight and can not hang with me. I am on a whole foods plant based diet, and do not shun carbohydrates but I make sure they are quality carbs and not the junk that they sell in almost every aisle at the standard supermarket. No meat or dairy for me. I know people love their meat and dairy, but it ain’t or me. I have read the critiques from Denise on Campbell’s work and his responses. I think you can pick apart any study and have a gotcha moment, but looking at the totality of the evidence that Campbell presents is very convincing in my eyes. He is very convincing in his debate against Dr. Eric Westman (an Atkins guy). Westman kept saying that he and Colin were stating the same thing but differently, and I said to myself What????? Their recommended diets are as different as night and day. Cambell is 79 years of age, having outlived his dad who died of a heart attack, so his diet must be doing something good for him. I suggest that a source to look at is that of Dr. McDougall: http://www.drmcdougall.com/free.html Hey eat what you want cause non of us are going to get out of this alive, but I have chosen a diet and lifestyle that I believe will allow me to maximize my time on this earth and be healthy and active for the duration.

Thanks for your message and for the tone in which you wrote it. As someone trying to settle on a opinion, it is really heard to get any traction. People on forums like this sound like our two political parities arguing.

One thing that I found is a lot of people like you (Bill Clinton to name one). I have yet to find someone that is later in years (50 or above) say they increased meat consumption and are better off for it – most say (at that age) they know it should go but can’t give it up.

Maybe Chris will find some people over 50 that went from vegan to meat eating and post it here (Chris if you do, please follow Rich’s tone and keep it positive – the spite and bitterness is exhausting on these things).

Not sure if I’d use Bill Clinton as a successful example of vegan health. He continued to have trouble maintaining his weight loss and 10 years after he turned vegan, he underwent quadruple-bypass surgery after a heart attack.

Do you think the fact that you have been a vegetarian for 15 years may have influenced you to think Dr. Campbell’s evidence is compelling?

I’m coming from a place of being on the fence on dietary matters. I think it’s probably a good idea to limit intake of processed and adulterated food and sugar, eat a variety of things and eat moderate quantities, but other than that I think the jury is out.

But it’s fascinating to see how a discussion of what is supposedly scientific evidence devolves into a bunch of people pushing the beliefs they already hold, or citing anecdotal evidence that their diet is superior.

Is it possible to have a rational discussion of whether or not Dr. Campbell has made his case convincingly, without being sidetracked by people’s personal habits or dietary belief systems?

Because, frankly, what random people on the internet eat or believe is not of interest to me. Why would it be?

The paleo diet is not living off of ice cream, bacon and cheese. Just so you are aware, the two longest lived populations in the world are the Okinawans and the Sardinians. The Okinawans eat pork and fish, and the Sardinians eat meat and cheese- in fact, plenty of live maggot infested cheese. Gross, but the men attribute their virility to their cheese, and the Okinawans attribute a 5 year jump in lifespan after WWII to the wider availability of pork.

I am what Pollan describes as a reluctant omnivore in that I continue to eat animals. I struggle with the fact that an animal’s death is necessary to nourish me in the most optimum way. Yet the research leads me to the conclusion that as humans who have fought their way up the food chain over millions of years, and whose biology reflects that of other animals, we do albeit reluctantly need animal nutrients to thrive. I feel the fear and the panic of every animal that has lost its life for the benefit of mine and insist that such animals live freely as nature intended and that there is no suffering. I have nothing but thanks and respect for them. If it can be absolutely shown that a plant based diet is what is necessary for optimum health I will put up with the belly aches and embrace the plants. Until then I will continue to eat meat and give thanks for the wonder of the cycle of life and death and tread as lightly and compassionately as I can. I think we should all be mindful of what or what we don’t eat and for what purpose.

Regardless of the health benefits of animal products, I’m wondering if the ethics of killing animals for our benefit is a concern for anyone. I recently saw an article posted on a respected paleo blog about the dangers of eating legumes due to their various antinutrients. The article basically asked why anyone would expose themselves by making such a bad choice given the availability of organic grass fed animal products. After thinking about it a while, I thought that the answer was pretty straight forward — the ends do not justify the means, and eating a legume does not require the suffering and death of a sentient creature. Can we say that it is morally licit to end sentient life, which can feel suffering and pain, so that we can eat “optimally”? I personally don’t think one can make a strong case for continuing to kill animals in the name of perfect or optimal human nutrition. Butchering an animal, even one that is well cared for, is rarely if ever a humane act. How many paleo goers among us are willing to go do the dirty work of killing the animals ourselves? I am a former paleo guy who believes we all need to be honest about the ethics of our actions given that we are beings capable of rational decision making as opposed to the lion who kills a zebra for food. The startling truth is that even if killing animals DOES lead to optimal human nutrition as we all believe, that doesn’t make it ethically sound.

Define “ethics”. “Self-sacrifice” is in no way a universal good. Demanding another’s self-sacrifice because it ought to be recognized aa good appears far more bad, objectively, than good.

Also, please factor in the wildlife and ecosystems displaced by the fields or similar structures used to plant plants, and deaths thereof.

“Killing” being always inherently bad is actually a rather modern notion. Fear of death or non-safety seems far more potentially harmful as a tenet in practice than pursuing a life which is lived, and fearing a life which was not worthwhile or lived and faced danger, challenge, joy, and beauty wholeheartedly.

People complain about it being wrong to kill an animal just so we can eat but what most people don’t realize is that if animals are not killed for food, they will over populate and die out from hunger and diseases anyways. Animals that are consumed by humans can and do over populate. We had a serious deer over population a few years back and it was nothing to take a walk in the woods and find a deer half dead and suffering from disease or starvation.

We raise our own food, everything from garden produce to our own beef as well as fruits, we like to know what we are eating and that it is free of pesticides and hormones. I know very well what a slaughter house looks like and I still eat beef. We have raised and killed our own chickens as well so I am not some city person who doesn’t know or think about where that package do hamburger actually came from, but I also know what happens to these poor animals if they over populate.

The least harm principle is not as clear cut as it sounds. While this is just an ‘over the napkin’ math, it makes a greater point about the loss of life of animals in harvests. He JUST talks about mice, but FAR FAR more animals than just mice are killed in harvesting plants. Pesticides don’t ask insects to nicely move to another habitat, and BILLIONS of bees are killed in forced pollination every year.

So, with the vast numbers of insects, birds, worms, snakes, rodents and other lives killed in harvesting plants, it’s sheer speculation to say that a diet without animals causes less harm than one that contains animals.

The Okinawans and the Sardinians, both meat eaters, live longer than the Loma Lindans. The Loma Lindans are also the most affluent of all the blue zoners, with some of the most excellent medical care in the world.

The Okinawans and Sardinians eat a VERY low meat diet, the Okinawans follow an 801010 diet, and is mostly plant based and vegan. You meat eaters will believe anything, and talk all types of crap just to support your views.

Your articles are nicely written and so not too difficult to read in spite of the complexity of the topic, but of course the medical links present more of a challenge. But it’s an important topic to me, so I’ll give it some time and attention and keep your blog bookmarked.

The statistics, however, show that *on average* there is a strong connection between high serum cholesterol and heart disease.

This statement is false, as I’ve shown with several articles on this blog with citations from major peer-reviewed journals. There is a very weak correlation between total and LDL cholesterol and heart disease. Most researchers in the field now agree that heart disease is caused by oxidative damage and inflammation – not high total cholesterol levels.

I understand very well how statistics are used to isolate risk factors. That’s exactly my point. When other factors are controlled for, high cholesterol is not a significant risk factor for heart disease. Period.

One reason I didn’t want to go on statins is that it seems like they somehow lower serum cholesterol readings without preventing heart attacks. That’s not to say that they don’t somewhat improve a person’s odds of dying from a heart attack, but not by as much as you’d think. And it makes sense to me that the statins could improve that one statistic without curing the disease – sounds like they treat the symptoms more than the cause of heart disease.

However, it doesn’t mean that high cholesterol readings should be disregarded. It still means that I had a much higher risk of dying of a heart attack. If I didn’t want the statins it’s because I don’t think they help all that much, but more importantly, they have miserable side effects.

The trouble with your reasoning (I watched the video linked above) and with Denise Minger’s (now I’ve read her article) is that neither one of you seems to understand how statistics are used to isolate risk factors. High blood cholesterol readings are just one element of risk; others include family history, smoking, etc. I’ve no doubt that if a person smokes a couple of packs a day going on a low-fat diet isn’t going to help a whole lot, but you can only sort that out from the data on heart disease by using statistics.

Statistics are used to discover patterns. So it could be that for some reason an ethnic group, like the aborigines cited in the video, have very high cholesterol and a low incidence of heart disease. But it may be that schlepping across Australia all day in the hot sun for some reason prevents the problem. The statistics, however, show that *on average* there is a strong connection between high serum cholesterol and heart disease. Therefore, until I too make it part of my daily routine to trek across the desert, eat roasted ‘roo meat, and whatever all else may make aborigines less susceptible to heart attack (and somebody really should do a study and find out what that is), I’ll continue to watch my cholesterol.

But truly, it’s your life, your health, and your decision. You should do what makes you happiest.

High cholesterol is not an issue in most cases, and low cholesterol (<150 mg/dL) is actually associated with increased mortality, cognitive decline (including Alzheimer's), depression, low libido and several other problems. The American public has been sold a bill of goods when it comes to saturated fat, cholesterol and heart disease.

Thanks for the link, and I’ll be sure to read the article as well as Susan’s link to the response.

However, I don’t get where all the anger is coming from. If you want to eat meat, or even lots of meat, you should go ahead. Even doctors not advocating a vegan diet are almost unanimous in what the likely consequences will be. But we all need to make our choices based on what’s most important to us.

As for me, I won’t switch away from the China Diet because it dropped my way too high cholesterol 70 points in a few months. My doctor had insisted I start on cholesterol lowering-drugs immediately, but when I retested she didn’t ask what technique I’d used to achieve such dramatic results – she just said I should keep it up, and that’s just what I plan to do

Denise Minger is totally out of her league. She isn’t a scientist at all, just an English major who’s bored and wants to sell you raw animal products. Get someone credible to dispute the China Study, I might actually believe it.

And Denise is not the only one who criticise Campbell. And even the best universities in the world could fail us too. They have been telling us to eating low fat since the 1960s, and obesity rate has been raising ever ever…

Louis and Clark were feeding their men 20-30 lbs of meat per day as I recall from reading their reports–this is public record. Could that have been true? Did some soldiers eat that much meat in the 19th century? Maybe that was simply a cow per day for 10 men and as such total weight of an animal or something? Anybody ever eat 20 lbs of meat in one day here?

“I am 70yo mostly raw vegetarian for the last 20 years. I feel great.”

I’d be more impressed if you were 70, in great health, and had been a vegan your entire life.

“I don’t need the China Study, just one look at a slaughter house was enough for me to realize I don’t need to eat the blood and flesh of animals.”

You don’t have to kill animals in order to add animal products to your diet. Animals don’t die when you consume eggs and dairy products taken from humanely-raised animals. You might also want to note that producing the plants you like to eat (which are themselves living things) involves killing or displacing the wildlife that inhabited the fields they’re grown in. Any way you dice it, if you want to eat, something is going to have to die.

“You don’t have to kill animals in order to add animal products to your diet. Animals don’t die when you consume eggs and dairy products taken from humanely-raised animals.”

I thought this, too, for many years. Having just completed an on-line course (MOOC) through the University of Edinburgh called, “Animal Behavior and Welfare.” I learned that all male chicks produced by hens that have been selectively bred for maximum egg-production are killed at birth because they are worthless as meat-producing animals. The male chicks are either thrown into a grinder or, more humanely, gassed to death. Likewise, male calves born of dairy cows are either killed within a few days (sometimes having been starved for the few days it takes for the calf disposal business to arrive at the farm), raised in a small crate for a few weeks to produce veal, or sold to become beef cattle. So, it’s not really possible to say that no animal dies when eggs and dairy are included in one’s diet. The researchers at the University of Edinburgh advocate husbandry practices that minimize animal suffering, such as not starving a calf before killing it.

“If it were me and I had to choose, I’d go for meat, as far as i know vitamin C is one of the only nutrients you can’t get from meat…”

Some organ meats are high in vitamin C. Personally, I’m perfectly happy being an omnivore and getting my vitamin C from fruits and vegetables.

I’ve experimented with both extremes and arrived at the conclusion that I feel best when there are both plant and animal foods in my diet. Note that Dr. Weston Price’s own findings don’t support the idea that a carnivorous diet is the healthiest (though I’d certainly choose a carnivorous diet over a vegan one).

I happened upon this website and saw this blog. First of all what a nasty bunch of people you are but perhaps thats from all that meat you are eating! I am 70yo mostly raw vegetarian for the last 20 years. I feel great. I don’t need the China Study, just one look at a slaughter house was enough for me to realize I don’t need to eat the blood and flesh of animals. Have you ever heard of Scott and Helen Nearing? I think they both lived to be in their 90″s and were vegetarians. One can eat meat or not and be healthy as long as diet has plenty of alternative proteins (I don’t personally eat soy) and plenty of fruits and veggies.

I like your comment, this is so interesting. I was curious to see if the China Study held water. Attacking it so vehemently and emotionally, belittling vegans, or anyone that does not blindly take their side doesn’t sound very open minded. I’m a vegan, my husband eats a ton of meat. We respect each others choices on the subject. You can always find evidence to back whatever you want to believe. Reading the rude, belittling comments on here make me embarrassed I ever ate meat. I understand vegans can be obnoxious, sure, but you guys have them beat. I became a vegan thanks to the way animals were treated, and after the fact noticed how incredible I felt. I lost weight, my endurance sky rocketed, and I haven’t even had a cold in years. My brother on the other hand was vegan for 2 months, then switched back to eating eggs and found he felt better. My point is, there’s evidence and scientific studies, as well as loopholes for both sides. I would have more respect for your opinions if you would have more respect for mine.

I see that vegetarianism has indeed improved your logics and rationality.

I have had the opportunity to meet both my great grandparents on my father’s side. My great grand father lived to be 104. We come from a region of Italy where meat is a staple of diet to say the least. I have killed plenty of animals I have eaten and know where the meat comes from when I haven’t killed it myself. I even eat live animals (see oysters). I have no problem eating fruit and vegetables either. I must say lately I’ve been exercising less than I should so I have gained some weight. But my diet hasn’t changed so it must be because my metabolism has changed, or simply because I’m eating the same amount of food as when I was doing 2 hours exercise a day except I’m too lazy to do it now.

In the family we are all omnivores. And we have all been feeling quite fine.

What we don ‘t feel is the compelling desire to tell others that they are a nasty bunch of people because of what they eat.

Mike Arnstein ran a 2:28 marathon this year at Boston. He is the FASTEST runner in the raw food movement today. Long time vegan and now powered by sweet fruit. How come there is no competitive athletes eating this ‘paleo fat diet?’ Please shut me up and show me cos Im sick of seeing cardio and muscle deficient paleo crew trying to debunk the china study that us elite athletes are thriving on. Can you debunk me with a high fat eating paleo athlete? Didnt think so..

oh look, another elite athlete that destroys your one reference, decades removed nonetheless. but at least you have your benching and deadlifting and whatever other manliness keeps your single digit iq sharp.

i feel like your response is only damaging to those in defense of the china study’s recommendations/methodology/etc who search for one damn reliable truth in this and the overarching general nutrition debate.

you sound like a big dumb animal. i’ve been reading and researching for weeks now after finishing the china study, and your comment is the only one i’ve responded to because it is so mindless, baseless, pointless, and utterly infuriating that my fingers were literally possessed.

i’ll be looking for you when you jump on the next nutritional bandwagon and keep the same pissing-contest chest-thumping “look at mah pecs” machismo.

Don’t be scared off by him. I’m plant-based, and even I am doubtful of Durianrider (and his girlfriend Freelee), the pair who basically started the 30 bananas a day craze.

Look into it more, and stay away from radical ideas. That includes people who eat one food (bananas) or suddenly decide one nutrient is the cause of all health problems (wheat).

Nutrition should be simple, people! No one should have to tell you how to eat.

In my personal opinion, I think meat is okay in very small, very tiny quantities. I do not think dairy is a good choice. And I think eggs can be a good protein choice if they are completely free range and pasture raised.

That being said, I am plant-based because it is the easiest, cleanest, best for the environment and animals, and makes me feel good.

I am wandering if they are cutting their own foot by criticizing Denise “over-simplified” method because she’s trying to replicate Campbell’s method.

Exactly. All Minger is doing is what Campbell should have done – but didn’t – in the first place. Any criticism of the weakness of drawing conclusions fro epidemiological studies simply strengthens Minger’s critique.

I’d never heard of 30 bananas before seeing it mentioned in the comments here and then they showed up on my blog spamming my post (where I recommended people to visit Denise’s blog) with a load of links to criticisms of her analysis! Visited the site, pretty hardcore stuff.

What a frightening coffin Chris. Makes it a little obnoxious. And what to do with the coffin when the study is in there? Burry or burn it? Couldn’t we just file and forget about this observational study and the often irrelevant, multi interpretable underlying data?

And not to mention the lack of evidence that ANY traditional cultures followed a vegan diet. In fact, even those cultures that were predominantly vegetarian went to great lengths to obtain animal products (like shellfish or insects) to supplement their diet with.

Since evolutionary biology tells us humans evolved eating animal products, the burden of proof is on those who claim our natural diet is somehow “unhealthy”. And so far there’s absolutely no such proof.

That is Bs. I am From Denmark. We have the very high rates of osterporosis, cancer in all kinds and heart attacts. We also consume huge amounts of Animal products. and people here are quite heavy looking in general. same goes for norway and sweeden.

I couldn’t agree more with you, Chris. You can’t reason with a faithful, no matter what the religion is. @ Tuoli: What a convenient explanation by Dr. Campbell to nullify any data or “black swans” that does not agree with his point of view. Does he do the same for the other counties? He should instead make public his methodology so we can compare his results and methods with Denise Minger’s. It’s surprising that that Denise is held to a higher degree of scrutiny and standard than Dr. Campbell. China study is just epidemiology, and epidemiology cannot prove cause and effect. China study is only at best a hypothesis that animal food causes disease. As shown by Denise, it is cherry picking at it’s best and lots of leap of logic. Like casein cause cancer => animal proteins cause cancer.

Maybe it would be good to look at the raw data yourself. Here is what happened with the Tuoli:

“[M]eat consumption for one of the counties, Tuoli, was clearly not accurate on the 3 days that the data were being collected. On those days, they were essentially eating as if it were a feast to impress the survey team but on the question of frequency of consumption over the course of a year, it was very different.” -Dr. Campbell (http://tynan.net/chinastudyresponse)

They only collected data for 3 days…and they were feasting to show off to the westerners. I wonder why Denise looked over this part? And if she wants to make herself credible I hope she is working to submit a peer review of her study to publish.

Ah, yes. Data collection. Interesting that you’d bring up possible inconsistencies with the Tuoli without mentioning the many other cases in the China Study where data collection was also questionable or inconsistent. That is one of the major reasons we can’t draw conclusions from epidemiological studies, as Daniel pointed out. Campbell should know this. It’s one of the first things taught in Research Methodology 101. But somehow even experienced researchers seem to forget it – especially when amnesia is expedient.

And as long as we’re talking about population based studies, what of the several traditional cultures around the world (i.e. Masai, Inuit, etc.) whose diets are composed almost entirely of animal products – and who eat little, if any, plant food? If Campbell were right, these would be among the unhealthiest people in the world. But these populations are relatively free of the modern diseases killing us today. That suggests animal products are not the culprit.

Denise made several important points in her analysis about how the data were collected, but more importantly, how they were interpreted (and which data were left out of the analysis entirely). I haven’t seen one critique of Denise’s work that addresses her points directly. Until that happens, you can’t expect us to take any of it seriously.

And I’d be careful about making the argument that we should ignore her analysis because it isn’t peer reviewed. Because then we might ask you to start showing us well-designed, peer-reviewed trials proving that animal products are harmful and that a plant-based diet is beneficial.

Thanks for the post and all the time you have put in on this – Would consider taking the time to answer a few more questions?

Do you have an additional response to Tuoli and Mike – looks like you stopped replying when it was really getting interesting.

Tuoli – Do you have anymore to say on this other then the whole study could be inconsistent? – Is there a meat eating research study that can compare with the size, duration and scope of the china study (I keep reading research only to find out it is based on a short duration and/or sample size)?

Mike’s Post – Inuits and Masa have numerous health problems?

Additional – Is there any research to show if you had to and if were educated like yourself could you live as healthy as a meat eater (again, under the premiss that you really knew what you were doing)?

I agree with you that the Inuit and Maasai do not have many of the “affluent diseases” that we have. Personally, I believe that is due to a ton of processed food and simply excess amounts of calories and weight.

However, it is true that of all of the primitive populations in the world, the Masai and the Inuit are the LEAST healthy.

“Inuit Greenlanders, who historically have had limited access to fruits and vegetables, have the worst longevity statistics in North America. Research from the past and present shows that they die on the average about 10 years younger and have a higher rate of cancer than the overall Canadian population.

Similar statistics are available for the high meat-consuming Maasai in Kenya. They eat a diet high in wild hunted meats and have the worst life expectancy in the modern world. Life expectancy is 45 years for women and 42 years for men. African researchers report that, historically, Maasai rarely lived beyond age 60. Adult mortality figures on the Kenyan Maasai show that they have a 50% chance of dying before the age of 59.2″

It makes sense that the human body will find nutrients in any situation, which is why the Inuit can receive all of their essential vitamins from a meat and fat based diet. But that does not mean that it is optimal.

Ah, it was inevitable. Unfortunately, none of those critiques you linked hold water. Denise’s analysis was impeccable, as many working physicians and researchers in the field have attested to. “Robert” makes so substantive criticism about her work other than to say it should be peer reviewed. By his own admission, he hasn’t “checked her math”.

This is all so predictable. It’s just human nature. People will go to great lengths to defend their worldview, regardless of what the evidence shows. I’ve said it a million times before: “you can’t fight faith with facts.”

@ Todd I came across someone on a nutrition forum who was trying a meat only diet, they had only been on it a few months and seemed to be enjoying themselves and feeling good. You’d have to get plenty of organ meat into you though I’d say. If it were me and I had to choose, I’d go for meat, as far as i know vitamin C is one of the only nutrients you can’t get from meat and if you’re low carb enough you need very little anyway so I’d say you’d fare better a bit longer. You wouldn’t last long if you weren’t eating any real protein.

Well, I would say look at evidence and you tell me. I don’t think a case can be made that one is healthier than the other. Both provide many of the same nutrients, but both also provide many things the other cannot. Completely eliminating one or the other will eventually lead to problems as most hardcore vegans find out after a while. I’ve yet to meet someone who has eaten nothing but meat for more than a couple weeks at a time so I can’t speak to that.

Uggh I have to admit I used to be a big fan of the china study back in my vegetarian days (before I knoew better basically). No I look at it and wonder how I could have been so easily won by some sensationalist writing, but as a veggie I like Campbell himself saw what I wanted to see. Been primal for about 4 months now after a over a decade of vegetarianism and often veganism and I feel fantastic! No more IBS for me yay! Denise is such an inspiration, what a talented woman, I wish I had a fraction of her abilities

I have not studied or even read the China report I really do not have to I am in the best shape of my life since I stopped eating meat,dairy and WHeat! I eat mainly raw fruit,vegtables nuts and seeds. That is what is good for me. I do not have an agenda but it does not take a study by a vegan or the meat and dairy industry to see who is the fatest and unhealthy people and what they eat; Sugar and wheat yes but to counter that what is healthier meat or vegtables? Each person is different but the higher the acid producing food the higher the chance of cancer and heart disease which re the 2 hihgest rates of death in the US. Which foods are high in acid and which are high in Alkaline no sudy or industry can hide the facts!

What’s better, meat or vegetables? Um, ideally, you don’t pick. You eat them both because both contribute different benefits to your health. I’m fascinated with the online comments tonight, many of them demanding that we pick a side, with no thought to the big picture. We need a good variety of all whole foods from the traditional 4 food groups.

I was thinking exactly about this and as far as I am concerned we are NOT HERBIVORES and also NOT CARNIVORES either . WE ARE AND ALWAYS HAD BEEN OMNIVORES. I do eat a lot of vegetables,some fruits and nuts but also eat a lot of EGGS, FISH,SEA FOODS,BACON,CHEESE,BUTTER and all kinds of MEATS. I eat absolutely NO GRAINS of any kind, no pasta, no rice and specially NO SUGARS for over 5 years now. I eat VERY LITTLE FRUITS , specially AVOCADOS,COCONUT MEAT and BERRIES ! I also drink a lot o Coconut water straight from the Coconut fruit. I have lost 80 pounds in one year after i have removed WHEAT, GRAINS and SUGAR from my life . NO MORE FAST JUNK FOOD & SODAS either ! I have been feeling GREAT since i have decided to live a Low carb,High fat/protein way of eating. I do eat BEANS almost every day, and Potatoes,Yams,Sweet potatoes,Corn,Peas,Lentils and Yuca ,so I dont know how I would call my diet because the Paleo diet do not recomend Beans and other legumes, maybe I would call it “my style Atkins Diet “, either way i am NOT interested in DIET LABELS , so I would just call it Ray’s Diet ! I feel great on Ray’s diet so I will stick to it .Ray’s Diet is basically a WHOLE FOOD DIET ,GROUND FOODS and MEATS. NO REGRETS !

High Chris, Excellent post. For years I supported reduced animal protein but that changed when I found certain nutrients were lacking in my diet. I now eat red meat at least once weekly although it is usually lamb, buffalo, wild game or grass feed & finished beef. I have searched for years for John Yudkin’s research works on sugar and animal protein all to no avail. Seems some of the wonderful research accomplished in the 1950’s & 60’s has mysteriously disappeared from the public arena. I did find significant reference to it in Linus Pauling’s “How to Live Longer and Feel Better” from the 1980’s. Keep tweaking the thought processes. – Pdazzler

Yes, I do believe that some people need to eat meat. If not most people. Those are just my beliefs, but I this, is interesting, to say the least. Veganism is ok, but I do not think you can take ANY diet and say that it is the right one for every human being. Veganism is plain not healthy, for some people. The fact of the matter is that some people just cannot absorb enough nutrients from vegan diets alone.

Very interesting! I cannot tell you how many books, dvd’s, and online information I have read in the past few years trying to resolve what I believe about this subject. Ironically, while in the airport last week (returning from a MonaVie conference where at the same time Suzanne Somers was having an alternative conference and I ran into Dr. Julian Whitaker), I saw the China Study in the bookstore and “almost” bought it realizing that is one of the last books I hadn’t picked up to read but had heard so much about! Shame on me for straying from my own faith. 1 Timothy 4:3-5… They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth. For everything God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer. That being said, I do believe this refers to “real, wholesome, unadulterated” food, not the garbage so readily available to us. Thanks for clarification once and for all!

you know that that verse tells you not to eat pork. cleansed by the WORD and prayer. The WORD/law states no pork should be eaten. And by the way Yahuwah said in genesis that we should eat herbs and fruits and after the fall of man HE included other plants. He never said in Genesis that we must eat meat.

I’ve never been healthier since switching to an almost all meat/fat diet 10 months ago. I eat almost no plants, absolutely no starches or sugars and high fat. My skin is good, my colour is good, my memory is better, my sense of direction is better, I’ve lost a ton of weight, my cavities don’t hurt anymore, I have more stamina, I’m not hungry all the time, my hair and nails are strong and shiny, I don’t get pms anymore, my mood is dead stable & calm…… Ditch the grains. Ditch the sugar. Eat the animals. and sure, do it ethically and support ethical husbandry.

This makes me sad. I understand the appeal of fast fixes and the lure of diets that make you drop weight within a couple of months, but you’ll be in trouble for the long-term. Dr. Atkins hid his “history of heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension”, you know. Good luck when you’re older.

I see you have fallen for the false hype on Dr. Atkins. Let me give you a little help, (just a quick and easy google search was all it took).

“In 2000, Dr. Atkins developed cardiomyopathy, an incurable heart condition which has quite a few different causes. His was thought to be from a viral illness, and his physician stated at the time that there was no evidence that his diet contributed to the condition. His coronary arteries were reported to have been checked at that time and found to be free of blockages. “

On Dr. Atkin’s death certificate his medical history included myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and hypertension. One of the major risk factors to the cardiomyopathy you referred to is long-term high blood pressure, something Dr. Atkins was diagnosed with. (http://goo.gl/NYZYf)

Additionally, when Dr. Atkins died he was 6’ tall and 258 pounds. I doubt this would be considered a picture of fitness for anyone, short or long term. (http://goo.gl/o5mXy)

Yes the Atkins diet works, you lose weight. But does any logical person really believe cutting out the carbs from fruits and vegetables and replacing it with blue cheese smothered onto a steak is a viable long term solution for sustainable health? The Atkins diet is simply a short term way of justifying bad habits, it will catch up with you eventually – just like it did for Dr. Atkins.

Wait, what’s “unethical” about eating animals? Animals eat animals. That’s the way the world works. You are free to choose not to eat them, but that doesn’t make the opposite choice unethical. Unsustainable maybe, but not unethical.

Do your ethics say that we should mass-euthanize all carnivorous species to protect the more herbivorous ones?

The difference between the animals you’re referring to and humans is necessity. Only 20% of animals are carnivorous, that kill other animals for food and are designed for it. Humans do not require animal flesh so it’s a choice. Ethics would ask us to minimize the amount of suffering, which choosing to eat meat clearly does not. So yes, I’m afraid it’s unethical.

For instance, dolphins are also known to engage in rape in the wild. http://goo.gl/JEpSC You mentioned “Animals eat animals. That’s the way the world works.” I doubt you would say what a rapist does is ok because dolphins do it.

I find it interesting that a big part of the reason people are able to justify putting animals through deplorable conditions just for our own gluttony is because they think humans are superior to other animals on this planet. Whether this is conscious or subconscious, this superiority generally comes into play.

So we can’t have it both ways without being hypocrites. They’re either inferior to us and we shouldn’t mimic their behavior or we value their existence and look to them for guidance for what we should be doing. Even if it’s the latter, I’d argue the animals we eat would encourage us not to eat them as it’s not a necessity and may even be at the root of most major diseases.

And of course we shouldn’t ‘mass-euthanize’ all carnivores as you put it. We also shouldn’t ‘mass-euthanize’ all the herbivores we’re currently raising for food in factory farms.

I couldn’t agree more, and I’ve said as much on the blog several times.

Nevertheless, in China the evidence still shows that eating meat (regardless of where it comes from) is not unhealthy and that the strongest correlation between a dietary variable and disease was not meat, but wheat.

A PhD cancer epidemiologist responded to Minger’s research. As she seems more qualified than I am I would like to refer you to her response. (http://goo.gl/eawSsf)

In summary your echoing her claim that wheat is the real evil suffers from the flaw of single variable analysis. Unless regression analysis is performed to address confounding variables Minger is really only completing the first step of the analysis.

Might I add that Minger is a 26 year old with an undergraduate degree in English. This hardly qualifies her to critique the work of an 80 year old with masters in nutrition and biochemistry and Ph.D.’s in biochemistry, nutrition, and microbiology from Cornell University. Not to mention she is an internet blogger who’s work has not been published or peer reviewed.

All I see here are appeals to authority, there isn’t much refutation at all in that other than pointing out one ecological fallacy and stating that it was crude without any backing – So I guess we’ll just say that she used the ‘fallacy fallacy.’

Maybe if she actually gave a comprehensive review of it, that link might be worth some time, but unfortunately as is, it isn’t.

I provided the first link as it’s more of a quick overview for those who don’t have the time to read Dr. Campbell’s full response. If you found it too high level – I encourage you to read his official response. (http://goo.gl/93N2)

He highlights plenty of reasons why Minger’s (And Kresser’s) conclusions are misleading. For example, Minger did not first consider the biological plausibility of their claims. They also failed to perform regression (multivariate) analysis taking into account confounding factors. Simply stating one variable moved when another variable moved is not sufficient to make a conclusion. (As is the case with the wheat claim)

As for your ‘Appeal to Authority’ point – if you’re a student of fallacies I encourage you to take into consideration the ‘Argument from Fallacy.’ Just because someone raises a point that can be tied to a fallacy doesn’t mean that person’s point is invalid. There’s enough fallacies out there that most arguments can be tied to at least one.

More specifically, stating Dr. Campbell’s experience and qualifications is not an important factor is a bit myopic. The same is true when evaluating the comments from the PhD cancer epidemiologist referenced in my previous post. When compared to Minger’s complete lack of qualifications or experience she doesn’t really belong in the same discussion.

If Dr. Campbell’s credentials and experience were as significant as you seem to think they are, then the scientific community as a whole would be advising us to stop eating meat. His research would be on the front page of the newspapers. Every mainstream health organization would be citing him.

Why aren’t they?

Because he hasn’t proven anything. When and if anyone has, we will know about it. And not via a mass market diet book.

He is just one guy out of many thousands with comparable qualifications, with all sorts of different opinions on the subject of optimum diet and research to back up those opinions. None of the research is definitive. It all conflicts with other research. You can find “proof” to match any opinion held by anyone. And you can also find lots of people who will tell you that all their health problems went away when they started eating x and/or stopped eating y, whatever x and y are. In short, you can believe whatever you want to believe and find things to reinforce your beliefs.

So tell us, why exactly is it that you have decided he is the one person with all the answers? Because he has a PhD and published research? Sorry, not good enough. PhDs and published research are a dime a dozen. If you’re going to rely on reputation and credentials to guide you, then you should be relying on the consensus in the field, not one person. Especially one person who doesn’t seem to be taken very seriously by his peers.

Dr. Campbell claims he used sophisticated statistical tools to analyze his data. If he made his claims in a scientific journal, we wouldn’t need Denise to challenge him; his peers would have done it. He would have had to describe those methods in detail so that they could be reviewed, validated and reproduced by others. Still waiting for that – and personal attacks on Denise are no substitute.

I’m afraid I don’t follow your logic that Dr. Campbell’s research is invalidated because it’s not being acted on by the public or that it’s not being put on the front page of newspapers.

For example let’s look at smoking. There’s been research pointing to cancer and cigarettes being linked since the late 1940’s. (http://goo.gl/8BRI6F) It wasn’t until the 1980’s that the percent of people who smoke started to drop in any noticeable way. (http://goo.gl/J3ZuA0) I suspect diet changes will take much longer to transpire, as it doesn’t effect people in the general vicinity in the same way smoking does.

The lack of action with cigarrettes isn’t because the research was wrong. It was because the tobacco industry had a lot of reason to keep the misinformation going as long as possible. Well meaning doctors even continued to promote smoking for decades after the findings started to come out. Why? Corporate profits were at stake, people don’t like to change and, most of all, people don’t like to admit when they’re wrong. Plus, if people really cared about their health 20%+ of the population wouldn’t still be smoking. So no, inaction is not sufficient grounds to claim the research is flawed.

I agree the area of diet can be quite gray with countless studies on both sides. However in my experience there is enough data to indicate animal products do more harm than good. For me one of the most convincing individual pieces of evidence is the World Health statistics. These show that as the amount of animal products and processed foods is reduced, the rate of diease (Heart disease and cancer, etc) drops right along with it. (http://goo.gl/1tBAv1)

The reason I brought up Dr. Campbell’s qualifications is because they are relevant to this discussion. No, I’m not comparing him to other PhD’s who have done research. I’m comparing him to someone who majored in English, is in her 20’s and completely unqualified in the field who is challenging his research.

Qualifications aren’t the sole piece of data that should be evaluated, but it’s a pretty good starting point. And if this isn’t enough, Dr. Campbell’s response is more than sufficient to nullify her claims. (As well as Chris’s) (http://goo.gl/93N2)

Also the China Study itself is one chapter out of 18, all of which reference different bodies of evidence. (And yes, peer reviewed ones) The fact that people are more intent on discrediting Dr. Campbell’s research rather than citing their own more compelling research (Supporting that eating animals is necessary for optimum nutrition) speaks volumes.

Oh, lord, Jeremy – this is the dregs you have to scrape to find a scientist backing up Dr. Campbell – an ANONYMOUS person on “Vegsource” whose credential is that she calls herself “a real PhD cancer epidemiologist”, who didn’t even read the book?

So are we allowing evaluation of the source or not? You seem to be against looking at Denise Minger’s credentials (Because there are none), but then when a PhD cancer epidemiologist comes into the mix all of a sudden you want to question the source because you haven’t read their full bio.

An anonymous person has no credentials. I’m a Nobel Prize-winning microbiologist. Are you going to take that seriously?

More importantly, what content? There is no content. She doesn’t say anything. Correlation is not causation? This kind of data requires sophisticated statistical analysis? Yes, we all know that already. How do these platitudes address a single one of the detailed and specific points Denise made?

The ONLY thing she says is, trust me – I know what I’m talking about and Denise doesn’t. Even if she gave us her name and professional affiliations, that’s not a serious rebuttal; without them, it’s completely worthless.

There are no end of people out there, including Dr. Campbell himself, eager to tell us how ignorant Denise is. Where is one person willing to refute her points?

Since you’re clearly not satisfied with the first source, why don’t you read Dr. Campbell’s response? He quite clearly explains that Minger is only completing the first step and that multivariate regression analysis, confounding factors, biological plausibility, etc cannot be skipped. (As Minger did) All she did was perform univariate analysis and run with it.

As for the source you provided, Hall referenced Minger’s statement saying that “I believe Campbell was influenced by his own expectations about animal protein and disease, leading him to seek out specific correlations in the China Study data”

Dr. Campbell grew up on a dairy farm, he used to milk cows. Do you really think he was looking for evidence to go against his family’s business?

And what is it exactly we need animal based foods for? If the China Study isn’t sufficient for you, there’s plenty of other data out there. http://goo.gl/1tBAv1 Why not error on the side of caution?

Have you ever stopped to consider that the animal products which they consumed were likely organic, or at least nowhere close to the meat that we eat as far as feed, antibiotics, steroids, Bovine cancer, papillomas, etc………..?

Interesting. I think it important that if one does eat meat, one should strive for the most humanely raised animal—grass fed beef for example. Cows were never meant to eat corn. ( I actually wish corn had never been invented) We buy our chicken from a local farmer who uses no hormones, antibiotics, etc. The birds are all free ranging. When we can afford beef we do get grass fed and what an amazing difference between that and the stuff you get at the grocery store. Not only the taste but the texture itself is better.

No one NEEDED to post it because, if you would have read the link to Minger’s blog, she posts it in the intro paragraph along with her formal rebuttal of his rebuttal that demolishes his arguments. Most of his arguments against her data were actually criticisms of his OWN methods, since she attempted to replicate his methods as closely as possible. Here’s her rebuttal:

I am not a scientist, doctor or any of the educated individudwho claim to be the authority of nutrition. But this is my personal experience. A few years ago, I was 300 lbs. I ate eggs and bacon for breakfast, soups, salads and sandwiches for lunch and fish and veg for dinner. I was fat and unhealthy and no amount of exercise changed this. I didn’t necessarily change my diet based on the China Study, but a lot of what Dr. Campbell says makes perfect sense, and mind you that The China Study was just a confirmation of other studies done by other scientists. But to me, I just used my common sense. Americans consume the most meat and dairy in the world, have the best health care but are still the most unhealthy people in the world, along with having the highest rates of cancer and osteoporosis. And everyone around me tries to avoid gluten and processed foods in favor of free range and grass fed and they’re still fat like I was and or dropping dead from CVD. The only way I was able to regain my health and become healthier than ever before was to adopt the plant based diet. And if that wasn’t enough, my father who ate grass fed beef and fish was fat and had a total cholesterol of 330 along with all the usual ie high blood pressure and so on. One day I got rid of all his meat and dairy and feed him a plant based diet and after only a few months he cut his cholesterol to a total of 133 and lost 80 lbs in the process and got off all his tons of meds, not to mention the statins which his doctor said he’d be on for life because supposedly his high cholesterol was “hereditary”. Once he got healthy, his doc pulled him off all meds and have him a print out which I had my RN friend translate and she confirmed that his “PROTEIN” levels and everything were normal, cholesterol was great, she was really glad that he got so healthy compared to how he was. So for me the evidence is clear, the elimination of animal products from the diet is the best and in my opinion the only way to optimal health as was achieved by me and my father along with the thousands of plant based dieters whom are online I talk to, among with 80 year old VEGAN bodybuilders and others who’ve been Vegan and disease free their whole lives. And as a side note I’d like to add that most of the healthiest ancient people in the world consumed wheat. Processed and adulterated is a problem yes, but everyone I know consumes wheat and has no adverse Keith issues. In contrary to your article, everyone I’ve ever known who went plant based got healthy. There are no scientific studies or health gurus needed for me to see that. Especially when when we physiologically have no need for animal products as I have learned through my diet mixed with intense exercise. I maintain my muscle and have trimmed excess fat with ease. I think recommending people consume animal products is irresponsible for two reasons, bad for human health and cruel for the animals. There is no such thing as “humane slaughter”, just the word slaughter in itself makes that apparent. And you should also remember that Dr. Campbell is not a VEGAN per se, he’s not into animal rights or other aspects of Vegan lifestyle, his work is based on his and his colleagues’ scientific observations. So I don’t see an agenda there, especially seeing as how he comes from a dairy family. I’m sure he wouldn’t bash the family profession without due process and cause. In my OPINION, I just think that people don’t like to hear that we shouldn’t eat animals, whether it’s a health argument or an animal rights one. People get rude, disrespectful and childish when we challenge long held beliefs. But the health of western countries may make Dr Campbell’s argument unnecessary as the personal and global effects of animal consumption are apparent for all to see. Thanks for reading.

“I think recommending people consume animal products is irresponsible for two reasons, bad for human health and cruel for the animals. There is no such thing as “humane slaughter”, just the word slaughter in itself makes that apparent.”

just the word slaughter in itself makes that apparent. just the word slaughter in itself makes that apparent. just the word slaughter in itself makes that apparent.

You may say that Dr. Campbell doesn’t have an agenda, but I think you just gave away yours. Oops!

So because Derk doesn’t believe in slaughtering animals he has an ‘agenda’? By that logic people who don’t believe in murder shouldn’t serve on the jury for a murder trial because they have an ‘agenda’.

Derk’s post was well written and a good example of the benefits of a whole food plant-based diet.

Dr. Campbell had no reason to push this message. As Derk already stated he grew up on a dairy farm. Dr. Campbell also went to the Philippines in the mid-60’s through the early 70’s to help feed the poor. They gave them the western diet rich in meat and dairy, etc thinking it would help them. It wasn’t until the local population started developing more disease (Specifically liver cancer in children) that he started to question his own beliefs. (In addition to other research)

Another thing – the China Study book is not just one study. There’s only one chapter devoted to the china study itself. If you take the time to read the other 17 chapters you’ll find there’s plenty of other evidence out there pointing to the same conclusion.

great reply. We do not need so called professionals to tell us whats good and whats not. We can see around us what kills people, the answer is plain and simple. ANIMAL PRODUCTS. Our physiology is not that of a meat eater but rather a plant/fruit eater.

As you’ve stated, your entire argument is based on your own bias. You have experienced and witnessed others give up animal products and become healthier, therefore you believe animal products have adverse effects. In my experience, I have watched my autoimmune condition slowly disappear after ADDING meat and fish into my diet. I also know plenty of vegetarians and vegans, almost all who have some form of chronic health condition or deficiency (yes, even the ones who eat no soy). Being in the autoimmune community, you become exposed to a lot of these cases. After a standard, healthy plant-based diet took away my ability to function as a normal human over time (keyword: long-term), I obviously have my own bias of thinking animal products are important for optimal health. See how our own different life experiences can lead to opposite beliefs? This is why we shouldn’t go around preaching dogmatic views of nutrition. I will emphasize that I’m not advocating for bacon or large amounts of meat, nor am I suggesting dairy be a staple. Obviously every human has a different body, a different digestive system, a different array of food allergies, etc. But when you’re eliminating the only food sources with *natural, absorbable, and substantial* amounts of B12, CoQ10, L-carnitine, and vitamin D (the most common and effective supplements used in treating autoimmune illnesses), you are putting your long-term health at risk. It can take up to 10 years before a B12 deficiency becomes apparent. Short-term effects of a plant-based diet can definitely be rewarding, and as a former vegetarian, I can attest to the addictiveness and almost cult-like obsession of being meat free. It gives the sensation of being lighter and healthier. However, I would argue it’s the elimination of processed foods, chemicals, hormones, and refined sugars that heal your body. A diet with no processed foods, an emphasis on nutrient-dense vegetables and fruits, and a couple servings of organic, grass-fed meat and fish each week is not going to promote cancer and heart disease. It will, however, provide you with the proper amount of vitamins, minerals, enzymes, and amino acids to strengthen your immune system. A small amount of animal products with a plant-based emphasis: when will this dietary movement arise? Oh yeah, it has; it’s just referred to as a balanced, healthy diet. *And let’s be clear here: your mental health, including stress levels, sense of belonging, sense of community, happiness, is just as likely to cause cancer and heart disease. None of these dietary theories are even considering psychoneuroimmunilogy. Ultimately, everyone is entitled to their own diet choices. It initially felt wrong and repulsive when I started eating meat and fish, but things began falling into place once I did. It was a sacrifice I had to make for my own well-being. I strongly recommend all vegans and vegetarians get yearly micronutrient testing and pay close attention to any signs their bodies are becoming sick. I wish I had. Thank you for reading and I wish you the best.

I’m glad to hear you’ve found a diet that works for you, but it’s a shame it’s required the re-incorporation of animal products.

Out of curiosity, have you had any blood tests of your own to point to what the issue was with your plant-based diet? I completely agree with you that processed foods don’t contribute anything and should be minimized or eliminated. However I struggle to understand why you believe animal products are necessary.

The only nutrient I’m convinced having a strong case to be supplemented for vegans is B12. This has more to do with the excessive sterilization in modern farming than the source of one’s food. My understanding is that after 50 years of age the human body can’t absorb the B12 from animals anyway and will still need to be supplemented, so vegans are just doing it a bit earlier.

As for small amounts of animal products not being harmful, I’m not sure what makes you believe this (Besides your personal experience). My understanding is that any amount of animal based foods increases the risk of disease (Heart disease, cancer, etc). The world health organization data supports this. (http://goo.gl/1tBAv1)

Best of luck to your future health. I appreciate that you’ve played around with your diet enough that you want to stick with what works, but I can’t help but challenge the need for animal products to be a part of it as my understanding is that the consumption of animal products is more likely to contribute to disease, not help manage / prevent it.

The chart from the WHO data I provided shows that the rate of disease continues to drop as the intake of processed foods / animal products drops. (Even to levels far below ‘moderate’ by western standards)

For instance, Thailand had just under 30% of their diet from processed / animal based foods and just over 10% of their deaths from heart disease and cancer while Laos had less than 10% of of their diet from processed / animal based foods and their heart disease / cancer risk dropped to ~5%. This trend continues from one end of the scale to the other.

If you have an alternative way to interpret the data I’m all ears, but I can’t see how any level of processed foods or animal products can be considered helpful or even necessary, even at ‘moderate’ levels.

1. Correlation vs causation. This graph could possibly support eating less meat in conjunction with other evidence, but it does not prove that meat is causing the illness. Other factors in those 12 countries could be causing disease. Assuming it’s the unrefined plants that are healthy, then it’s possible that eating unrefined plants together with animal products is healthier yet. The graph itself just doesn’t prove or disprove anything about animal products in the diet.

2. Cherry-picking. Whenever I see a graph that clean I have to ask where the rest of the data is. Or maybe the WHO just doesn’t have stats on the other 90+ percent of Europe’s population? Given how doubtful that is, it’s very likely that those countries were picked to make the graph look good.

The latter is actually a huge issue since food policy in the last 50 years has been set on the basis of “scientific” research which has since been shown to have been cherry picked. Many sources suggest Ancel Keys’ seminal “seven countries” study was pared down from 22 countries because the data from the other countries did not fit his hypothesis!

I agree no data is 100% conclusive. Especially when it comes to nutrition and linking activity A with disease B, which often transpires several years down the road.

You suggested that eating unrefined plant foods and animal products together could help reduce disease better than just plant-based foods. If what you suggested was taking place with the current data set I would expect a less linear relationship. In every case where the % of unrefined plant foods in the diet is increased the rate of disease decreases. This would require the reduced intake of animal-based foods and processed foods as well.

I agree there’s confounding factors and biological plausibility to be considered, but that’s where looking at multiple studies (Such as the China Study) helps to sharpen the picture a bit.

As for correlation vs. causation, I agree causation is not an easy task to prove. However, I do not believe that scientific causality should be the only factor for decisions we make. For instance, here’s an article that insists smoking does not cause lung cancer: http://goo.gl/QfTLTr

As for your point regarding cherry-picking, I agree and I would like to see more of the data too. If you see a more complete data set out there that would be great. For me based on the information that is provided it’s hard to ignore that processed foods and animal products seem to be killing us.

There’s another piece of the puzzle for why there may be so many countries left out. Thanks to increasing westernization, it’s quite difficult to find countries that aren’t consuming high levels of processed foods and animal products. If they included all of Europe for example, I would suspect there would be a lot of similarities, which wouldn’t add a lot to the discussion. (Similar diets and similar rates of disease) The purpose of the WHO data is to show what happens when processed foods and animal products are reduced.

Even if the data isn’t 100% conclusive, wouldn’t we want to error on the side of caution? I can’t see anyone reading the smoking article I referenced earlier and saying, “You know, this seems like quite a gray area, I think I’ll pickup smoking.” (Although I’m sure plenty already addicted may see it as an excuse to continue. Confirmation bias is a powerful force)

Thanks for the lively debate Jason. Regardless of where each of us falls on the topic it’s an important discussion to have. If not for our health, for the animals.